Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
LightWanderer
Member
Joined in 2018
AKA: AnOpenCasket
Location: Earth

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by LightWanderer » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:44 pm

Moggy wrote:Coloured? :dread:

The only character you can think of to represent Black people is a golliwog? :fp:

strawberry float me that's an embarrassing post. :fp:


I mean they could have a black doll but that runs the danger of people complaining about blackface because of how poorly black dolls have been made a lot of the time. Google image black toy and of the human ones a lot would look really bad if animated. Maybe an action figure of an NBA basketballer now that they have celebrity voice actors.
Also: they already have coloured characters in Toy Story, Gabby Gabby's new family. People are complaining over nothing.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Moggy » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:47 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Moggy wrote:Coloured? :dread:

The only character you can think of to represent Black people is a golliwog? :fp:

strawberry float me that's an embarrassing post. :fp:


I mean they could have a black doll but that runs the danger of people complaining about blackface because of how poorly black dolls have been made a lot of the time. Google image black toy and of the human ones a lot would look really bad if animated. Maybe an action figure of an NBA basketballer now that they have celebrity voice actors.
Also: they already have coloured characters in Toy Story, Gabby Gabby's new family. People are complaining over nothing.


You use the word "coloured", you say you don't care about the lack of female characters, you use the word "cripple" and find the idea of gay relationships a "whatever next!" scenario?

Grow the strawberry float up.

As for people complaining about nothing, you are literally complaining about a few people who just want to see more representation in movies. How outrageous of them.

User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Corazon de Leon » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:06 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Moggy wrote:Coloured? :dread:

The only character you can think of to represent Black people is a golliwog? :fp:

strawberry float me that's an embarrassing post. :fp:


I mean they could have a black doll but that runs the danger of people complaining about blackface because of how poorly black dolls have been made a lot of the time. Google image black toy and of the human ones a lot would look really bad if animated. Maybe an action figure of an NBA basketballer now that they have celebrity voice actors.
Also: they already have coloured characters in Toy Story, Gabby Gabby's new family. People are complaining over nothing.


Stop saying coloured. It's not an appropriate term anymore.

Image Image
User avatar
LightWanderer
Member
Joined in 2018
AKA: AnOpenCasket
Location: Earth

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by LightWanderer » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:17 pm

Moggy wrote:You use the word "coloured", you say you don't care about the lack of female characters, you use the word "cripple" and find the idea of gay relationships a "whatever next!" scenario?

Grow the strawberry float up.

As for people complaining about nothing, you are literally complaining about a few people who just want to see more representation in movies. How outrageous of them.


Thought about it some more and not only the aforementioned spoiler but they also have Combat Carl, in a role loved by many. He is a person of colour. There already is representation so I don't see why they're complaining.

I thought "coloured"/POC is preferred than the term "black"?
"Cripple" is probably poor word choice on my part, not familiar with it enough to know if it's an offensive term. If it is I retract it.
If you knew anything about me you'd know I don't find gay relationships a "whatever next situation" and 75% of my social circle are female.

I don't mind representation, it's important, but not at the cost of telling a good story. The movie already struggles to keep everything constrained in its time limit, including other characters for the sake of representation would make it a worse story. Changing characters for representation wouldn't work (most characters have already been established, the new human toys are all vintage so of course they're white as there aren't many vintage dolls of colour)

I'm complaining about the current trend to complain about every movie because it has a lack of representation or is politically incorrect. One of my favourite movies is Sixteen Candles. There's stuff in that movie that is definitely not politically correct. Even the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies have a few politically incorrect moments in them and not much representation. A good story is a good story. I watch movies to escape from reality, do we really need to bring stuff like politics and representation into every movie we watch? Movies of representation are important but not at the cost of a good script. Poor representation is always better than shoehorning it in just to keep every demographic happy.

For the record my three favourite animated movies of all time (they hold equal status) are Shrek 2, Spiderverse and the Prince of Egypt. Shrek 2 doesn't have onscreen representation, although it was the first animated movie series to have a person of colour as one of the lead voices. Spiderverse has incredible representation, Miles Morales is my favourite Spiderman. And Moses wasn't the whitest boy either. These two movies have representation that doesn't detract from the story.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Hexx » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:22 pm

I wonder what slight impropriety has sent Adam off on a diatribe today...

Image

User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Corazon de Leon » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:28 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Moggy wrote:You use the word "coloured", you say you don't care about the lack of female characters, you use the word "cripple" and find the idea of gay relationships a "whatever next!" scenario?

Grow the strawberry float up.

As for people complaining about nothing, you are literally complaining about a few people who just want to see more representation in movies. How outrageous of them.


Thought about it some more and not only the aforementioned spoiler but they also have Combat Carl, in a role loved by many. He is a person of colour. There already is representation so I don't see why they're complaining.

I thought "coloured"/POC is preferred than the term "black"?
"Cripple" is probably poor word choice on my part, not familiar with it enough to know if it's an offensive term. If it is I retract it.
If you knew anything about me you'd know I don't find gay relationships a "whatever next situation" and 75% of my social circle are female.

I don't mind representation, it's important, but not at the cost of telling a good story. The movie already struggles to keep everything constrained in its time limit, including other characters for the sake of representation would make it a worse story. Changing characters for representation wouldn't work (most characters have already been established, the new human toys are all vintage so of course they're white as there aren't many vintage dolls of colour)

I'm complaining about the current trend to complain about every movie because it has a lack of representation or is politically incorrect. One of my favourite movies is Sixteen Candles. There's stuff in that movie that is definitely not politically correct. Even the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies have a few politically incorrect moments in them and not much representation. A good story is a good story. I watch movies to escape from reality, do we really need to bring stuff like politics and representation into every movie we watch? Movies of representation are important but not at the cost of a good script. Poor representation is always better than shoehorning it in just to keep every demographic happy.

For the record my three favourite animated movies of all time (they hold equal status) are Shrek 2, Spiderverse and the Prince of Egypt. Shrek 2 doesn't have onscreen representation, although it was the first animated movie series to have a person of colour as one of the lead voices. Spiderverse has incredible representation, Miles Morales is my favourite Spiderman. And Moses wasn't the whitest boy either. These two movies have representation that doesn't detract from the story.


Here's an article that discusses the use of the term coloured, or people of colour, and why it's not really an appropriate way to describe anyone at this point in time.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/people-of-color-phrase-history-racism.html?via=gdpr-consent

FWIW, nobody is saying you're being racist, but your arguments and word choice need a bit of refinement.

As for your other points - representation should always be discussed, and it should be at the forefront of the mind of anyone involved in making a Hollywood movie. In the case of Toy Story, they're toys. How difficult would it have been to make Duke Caboom black or Asian(even as it is his voice actor is part-Chinese, and from Lebanon for Christ's sake)? What would the impact have been on the story? Equally, comparing a film released in 2019 to movies released in 2002 and 1986 is a little unfair, given that attitudes have changed vastly within the last five-ten years, let alone the past fifteen, or thirty-three.

However I will make a point about the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. The Spider-Man films were *horrendously* white. Needlessly so. The one major black character(Joe Robertson) in Spider-Man's history was relegated to something like four minutes of screen time in the first film, and even less after that. Homecoming showed that it's really, really easy to diversify the cast - Flash Thompson became Guatemalan, MJ became black etc with absolutely no overall effect on the story. Why couldn't this have been done in the Raimi trilogy, or Amazing Spider-Man films?

Last edited by Corazon de Leon on Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image Image
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Jenuall » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:34 pm

Given how diverse Queens is as a borough in NY it is bizarre how white they made the Spider-Man films until recently.

ImageImage
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Moggy » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:36 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Moggy wrote:You use the word "coloured", you say you don't care about the lack of female characters, you use the word "cripple" and find the idea of gay relationships a "whatever next!" scenario?

Grow the strawberry float up.

As for people complaining about nothing, you are literally complaining about a few people who just want to see more representation in movies. How outrageous of them.


Thought about it some more and not only the aforementioned spoiler but they also have Combat Carl, in a role loved by many. He is a person of colour. There already is representation so I don't see why they're complaining.

I thought "coloured"/POC is preferred than the term "black"?
"Cripple" is probably poor word choice on my part, not familiar with it enough to know if it's an offensive term. If it is I retract it.
If you knew anything about me you'd know I don't find gay relationships a "whatever next situation" and 75% of my social circle are female.

I don't mind representation, it's important, but not at the cost of telling a good story. The movie already struggles to keep everything constrained in its time limit, including other characters for the sake of representation would make it a worse story. Changing characters for representation wouldn't work (most characters have already been established, the new human toys are all vintage so of course they're white as there aren't many vintage dolls of colour)

I'm complaining about the current trend to complain about every movie because it has a lack of representation or is politically incorrect. One of my favourite movies is Sixteen Candles. There's stuff in that movie that is definitely not politically correct. Even the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies have a few politically incorrect moments in them and not much representation. A good story is a good story. I watch movies to escape from reality, do we really need to bring stuff like politics and representation into every movie we watch? Movies of representation are important but not at the cost of a good script. Poor representation is always better than shoehorning it in just to keep every demographic happy.

For the record my three favourite animated movies of all time (they hold equal status) are Shrek 2, Spiderverse and the Prince of Egypt. Shrek 2 doesn't have onscreen representation, although it was the first animated movie series to have a person of colour as one of the lead voices. Spiderverse has incredible representation, Miles Morales is my favourite Spiderman. And Moses wasn't the whitest boy either. These two movies have representation that doesn't detract from the story.


Coloured hasn't been acceptable since Bernard Manning was last on TV.

Where is the cost to good story telling from having a few more female, gay, Black, Asian or disabled characters? Would Woody being Mexican change anything? There is no reason why Toy Story can't have representation.

I am not arguing it should be more representative either btw. I just don't see why people asking for more representation triggers people so strongly. Why do you care if some people think there should be more Black characters in animated films about toys?

User avatar
LightWanderer
Member
Joined in 2018
AKA: AnOpenCasket
Location: Earth

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by LightWanderer » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm

Corazon de Leon wrote:Here's an article that discusses the use of the term coloured, or people of colour, and why it's not really an appropriate way to describe anyone at this point in time.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/people-of-color-phrase-history-racism.html?via=gdpr-consent

FWIW, nobody is saying you're being racist, but your arguments and word choice need a bit of refinement.

I'll read that article, thank you. Every keyboard warrior I've come across on Facebook etc who claim to be fighting for the oppressed call them POCs hence my poor word choices.

As for your other points - representation should always be discussed, and it should be at the forefront of the mind of anyone involved in making a Hollywood movie.

Why? Can't we just enjoy a movie without every movie having to be worried about that stuff? Movies are escapism, real world politics shouldn't be a necessity. I believe they're good to talk about but not a requirement for every movie. I've definitely done my part by watching other movies with minority groups, like Spiderverse, Prince of Egypt, Black Panther, Coco, Moana etc, now just let me relax and enjoy my cartoon movie about toys gosh dammit!

In the case of Toy Story, they're toys. How difficult would it have been to make Duke Caboom black or Asian(even as it is his voice actor is part-Chinese, and from Lebanon for Christ's sake)?

Again why would it be necessary? I'd have a lot of arguments why that would be a horrible idea. Keanu himself is Canadian, do you really want to take representation away from one country that hasn't been represented by the series yet, just so someone else can have it? Also Duke Caboom is a parody on Evel Knievel, a white stuntman from the continent of North America. It would be weird to make his character black. You've no doubt heard of white washing, making someone who wasn't white white in a movie (Scarlet Johansson's character in the Ghost in the Shell movie adaptation). Do you really want to blackwash a character based on a white person?

What would the impact have been on the story?

Where would they fit? We can't just change already established characters to turn them black, so that leaves us with the new cast. Ducky and Bunny are animals so they're out. Duke Caboom is out for the reasons just explained. Gabby Gabby and the Bensens are vintage dolls, of which there were no appropriate black ones. In terms of toys that leaves us with that little conscience thing Bo has on her shoulder, and Forky. Most sporks are white, and having him be black and then saying stuff like he belongs in the trash and his purpose is to serve a white girl would be problematic. Similarly Bo's conscience thing, having her be black and a character of servitude would be problematic.
In terms of people, there's already a black family at the carnival who have a very pivotal role.
So they'd have to make a new character, and the movie's already struggling to keep within it's time limit so the movie would most definitely suffer.
Plus they already have Combat Carl, in a universally loved role. He is a black toy.


Equally, comparing a film released in 2019 to movies released in 2002 and 1986 is a little unfair, given that attitudes have changed vastly within the last five-ten years, let alone the past fifteen, or thirty-three.

True. Similarly, Toy Story 4 is from a series that began in the 90s. If the movies started in today's climate there'd be a lot more wiggle room to maybe make Buzz black or something, especially since the first movie is already a good allegory on how a white man struggles with the change in his society when a man from another culture is able to rise to prominence in this society, challenging the status quo that this white man is used to.

However I will make a point about the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. The Spider-Man films were *horrendously* white. Needlessly so. The one major black character(Joe Robertson) in Spider-Man's history was relegated to something like four minutes of screen time in the first film, and even less after that. Homecoming showed that it's really, really easy to diversify the cast - Flash Thompson became Guatemalan, MJ became black etc with absolutely no overall effect on the story. Why couldn't this have been done in the Raimi trilogy, or Amazing Spider-Man films?

True. I already admitted to the representation problems in the Raimi trilogy - as well as lack of racial diversity, women were only used as damsels in distress or mother figures.
I'm all for the diverse direction the new movies have taken, even if blackwashing MJ is something that I personally find jarring: redhead MJ is too iconic. But I like the direction they've taken with Flash and Peter's new best friend.
Also just to reiterate my favourite Spiderman is Miles Morales.



Hexx wrote:I wonder what slight impropriety has sent Adam off on a diatribe today...


I'm assuming Adam is Moggy, rather than Corazon?

Edit: I'm okay with Zendaya being MJ (great actress) but wish she had kept the iconic red hair.

User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Ironhide » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:02 pm

Adam is Ad7.

And as for using the word 'cripple' to describe a disabled person, its extremely outdated and might cause offense to some, As someone with a severe physical disability myself I personally wouldn't be overly offended but at the same time I'd think whoever described me as that was being incredibly ignorant and rude.

Image
User avatar
LightWanderer
Member
Joined in 2018
AKA: AnOpenCasket
Location: Earth

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by LightWanderer » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:00 pm

Ironhide wrote:Adam is Ad7.

And as for using the word 'cripple' to describe a disabled person, its extremely outdated and might cause offense to some, As someone with a severe physical disability myself I personally wouldn't be overly offended but at the same time I'd think whoever described me as that was being incredibly ignorant and rude.


So educate them! Obviously referring to you I'd call you by your name IronHide but if I was referring to a group of people who can't walk, what's the short way of saying that? Is there a polite phrase to use?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Moggy » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:08 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Ironhide wrote:Adam is Ad7.

And as for using the word 'cripple' to describe a disabled person, its extremely outdated and might cause offense to some, As someone with a severe physical disability myself I personally wouldn't be overly offended but at the same time I'd think whoever described me as that was being incredibly ignorant and rude.


So educate them! Obviously referring to you I'd call you by your name IronHide but if I was referring to a group of people who can't walk, what's the short way of saying that? Is there a polite phrase to use?


How do you get to the year 2019 without knowing that “coloured” and “cripple” are not acceptable?

Disabled is the word you are looking for.

User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Ironhide » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:25 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:
Ironhide wrote:Adam is Ad7.

And as for using the word 'cripple' to describe a disabled person, its extremely outdated and might cause offense to some, As someone with a severe physical disability myself I personally wouldn't be overly offended but at the same time I'd think whoever described me as that was being incredibly ignorant and rude.


So educate them! Obviously referring to you I'd call you by your name IronHide but if I was referring to a group of people who can't walk, what's the short way of saying that? Is there a polite phrase to use?


Disabled people or wheelchair users if you really need to point out they're disabled but in most cases you're better off not mentioning the fact they can't walk.

Image
User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Corazon de Leon » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:28 pm

AnOpenCasket wrote:Why? Can't we just enjoy a movie without every movie having to be worried about that stuff? Movies are escapism, real world politics shouldn't be a necessity. I believe they're good to talk about but not a requirement for every movie. I've definitely done my part by watching other movies with minority groups, like Spiderverse, Prince of Egypt, Black Panther, Coco, Moana etc, now just let me relax and enjoy my cartoon movie about toys gosh dammit!


Movies are escapism to a point, but they also cater to an audience, and the audience has every right to expect to see representation in the films that are released by major studios. If you don't want to engage in the argument then you're absolutely within your rights not to do so, but why is it a problem for you that others want to raise things that they find problematic about films that they want to enjoy?

The other thing I'd raise specifically about Toy Story is that this is a film and a series that caters largely to young children, and I think that it has more of a responsibility than most other films as a large franchise to ensure that it is as inclusive as it can be, because the consequences of othering children of different races could be pretty dire. It's important in my view to foster messages of inclusivity early in life, and something like Toy Story, I would argue, has a responsibility to be part of that conversation.

AnOpenCasket wrote: Again why would it be necessary? I'd have a lot of arguments why that would be a horrible idea. Keanu himself is Canadian, do you really want to take representation away from one country that hasn't been represented by the series yet, just so someone else can have it? Also Duke Caboom is a parody on Evel Knievel, a white stuntman from the continent of North America. It would be weird to make his character black. You've no doubt heard of white washing, making someone who wasn't white white in a movie (Scarlet Johansson's character in the Ghost in the Shell movie adaptation). Do you really want to blackwash a character based on a white person?

Where would they fit? We can't just change already established characters to turn them black, so that leaves us with the new cast. Ducky and Bunny are animals so they're out. Duke Caboom is out for the reasons just explained. Gabby Gabby and the Bensens are vintage dolls, of which there were no appropriate black ones. In terms of toys that leaves us with that little conscience thing Bo has on her shoulder, and Forky. Most sporks are white, and having him be black and then saying stuff like he belongs in the trash and his purpose is to serve a white girl would be problematic. Similarly Bo's conscience thing, having her be black and a character of servitude would be problematic.
In terms of people, there's already a black family at the carnival who have a very pivotal role.
So they'd have to make a new character, and the movie's already struggling to keep within it's time limit so the movie would most definitely suffer.
Plus they already have Combat Carl, in a universally loved role. He is a black toy.


Blackwashing isn't a thing, nor is it offensive in this case as Duke Caboom isn't Evel Knievel. Why do Canadian and Asian or middle-eastern have to be separate? As you said, Keanu Reeves has Canadian citizenship but he's from Beirut, and has Hawaiian-Chinese ancestry. Why can't, or shouldn't, the character he voices reflect that? He's not playing the role of Evel Kneivel, he's playing a cheap knock-off that could have had any number of distinct or interesting features. What effect to the story would there have been if that character had been more reflective of the ethnic features of the actor cast in the role? As Moggy said, I'm not personally arguing that Toy Story 4 isn't racially diverse enough and am just using Duke Caboom as an example, but if there are a subset of people who think that there is a problem and have given reasonable assertions to back up their view, should we be telling them to shut up and watch what they're told to watch, or should we be taking the time to appropriately respond and create a dialogue about the situation?

AnOpenCasket wrote:True. Similarly, Toy Story 4 is from a series that began in the 90s. If the movies started in today's climate there'd be a lot more wiggle room to maybe make Buzz black or something, especially since the first movie is already a good allegory on how a white man struggles with the change in his society when a man from another culture is able to rise to prominence in this society, challenging the status quo that this white man is used to.


Toy Story came out in 1995, yes, but Toy Story 4 is a brand new film. There's plenty of "wiggle room," now to change the core cast and characters up.

AnOpenCasket wrote:True. I already admitted to the representation problems in the Raimi trilogy - as well as lack of racial diversity, women were only used as damsels in distress or mother figures.
I'm all for the diverse direction the new movies have taken, even if blackwashing MJ is something that I personally find jarring: redhead MJ is too iconic. But I like the direction they've taken with Flash and Peter's new best friend.
Also just to reiterate my favourite Spiderman is Miles Morales.

Edit: I'm okay with Zendaya being MJ (great actress) but wish she had kept the iconic red hair.


Blackwashing again? Really? You've taken another term with inherently negative connotations(whitewashing) and changed it around to imply that there's something inherently wrong with what's being discussed, which is fostering inclusivity. I find the term a little offensive if I'm honest. And, in actuality, it hasn't even been done here if we're getting pernickety - Michelle Jones isn't Mary-Jane Watson, and even if she was the character is a hell of a lot more than a shock of red-hair.

Image Image
User avatar
LightWanderer
Member
Joined in 2018
AKA: AnOpenCasket
Location: Earth

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by LightWanderer » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:49 pm

Corazon de Leon wrote:stuff


You know what, you win. You've raised very good points and there's nothing I can add to the debate at this point without feeling like a jerk because everything you say makes a lot of sense. Thank you for educating me, there's still a lot of stuff I have to learn.

User avatar
Ad7
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Ad7 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:32 pm

Image

Hexx wrote:Ad7 is older and balder than I thought.
User avatar
Vermilion
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Vermilion » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:51 pm

Ad7 wrote:Image


Look! Adam! Adam! We've got Adam here!

User avatar
Ad7
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Ad7 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:23 pm

See, nobody cares!

Hexx wrote:Ad7 is older and balder than I thought.
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Oblomov Boblomov » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:49 pm

I wonder what sort of light-hearted banter I will find in the Things That U Annoy thread this fine evening...

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Coloured

Cripple

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Cora :wub: my hero.

Image
User avatar
Trelliz
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Annoy: Pour Homme (NO HOMMO), by Ad7
by Trelliz » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:32 am

AnOpenCasket wrote:Shrek 2 doesn't have onscreen representation, although it was the first animated movie series to have a person of colour as one of the lead voices.


Continuing the education theme, The Lion King came out 10 years before Shrek 2 and has James Earl Jones as one of the lead voices, so perhaps find a new "I like films with black people" film.

Tragic Magic wrote:I'm giving esteem a name of crafty Fu mining pinitz strawberry float me I live roasted ponuts

Never pre-order or pre-purchase a console, game or season pass.

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BAKA, Balladeer, BTB, Cuttooth, Denster, Fade, floydfreak, Google [Bot], Heskimo, JChalmers, Kanbei, Lex-Man, Lime, Mafro, Photek, Preezy, Return_of_the_STAR, suzzopher, Tafdolphin, Vermilion, Zaichik and 52 guests